this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
852 points (97.2% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1001 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If someone invades your country and kills your countrymen you don't negotiate with them. You tell them to get the fuck out or we'll kill every one of you motherfuckers that decides to continue being on our land. Why? You going to advocate being like Chamberlain? Or Quisling? What do you suggest someone does if their country is invaded?
So we're fighting to the last Ukrainian then?
They are, mate. You act like the West is standing behind Ukraine threatening to shoot anyone that retreats. We're sending em guns and money, if they wanted to stop fighting they could make that decision tomorrow.
You haven't seen the video of the Ukrainian lieutenant throwing a grenade into the trench of the Ukrainian soldiers who disobeyed an order to charge the front. Or the daylight kidnappings of Ukrainian citizens by the recruitment officers.
I sure haven't
How do you show you've never heard of the war of the triple alliance or of Paraguay, without saying war of the triple alliance or Paraguay.
Weirdly specific
Sorry, I was on a long canoe trip without internet access.
It is specific for a reason.
It feels good to say that you will support a country that wishes to fight to its last inhabitants. It sounds good. It sounds macho. Very few people actually think about the actual consequences to a policy like that.
But, we have a real life example, and it is horrible beyond description. Sometimes, if you can make people see the horror and blood of a macho pithy saying, maybe you can get them to see the actual cost of that macho pithy saying.
Sometimes, sadly, giving up is the right thing to do.
I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they'll eventually lose, it's better for everyone if they give up quickly ... then this historical example doesn't seem relevant.
Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I'm sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it's necessary to fight this one out.
Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I'll admit it's a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn't terribly relevant.
Do you think Russia will unconditionally surrender and stop fighting when Ukraine reaches the Russian border?
Do you think Ukraine is going to invade Russia after they push them to the border?
I don't think Ukraine is about to conquer Russia or capture Moscow, even if they wanted to or if we want them to.
Do you think Russia will unconditionally surrender and stop fighting when Ukraine reaches the Russian border?
I have no idea. Even if they don't, Ukraine just has to defend their territory, which they have proven more than capable of.
The only one party that can end this conflict is the aggressor.
The only thing they've proven is that the West really wanted to get rid of their old weapon stock.
A safety buffer zone of a few kilometers, on the Russian side, past the Ukrainian country, sounds reasonable. Depending on how far they still keep shooting.
More likely there will simply be no peace and they'll technically stay at war, with a huge minefield in between the two countries, until one of them runs out of money.